Where are we headed to?

A few centuries (millenia) back we as humans were organized in patriarchaic clans. We changed from nomadic hunters to farmers and settled down. The discovery of fire allowed for a different sort of living, we started to cook, to forge weapons, to build villages and cities.

The invention of writing allowed us to preserve and teach knowledge beyond the local oral traditions.

Eventually this made it possible to create states and nations where the members having diversified their skills need each other to live, that means people gave up on autonomy but got overall higher wealth and possibilities.

This then got more efficient through capitalism, with more work-specialisation, with a paper-currency, with banks...

And coupled with new inventions like the steam-engine, electricity, radio... allowing for bigger societies, more comfort, more wealth... more security... that then allowed even women to participate in earning their livelihood.

Family-structures changed considerably from patriarchaic clans to the modern small family-structures with a mother, father and one-three children.

And it doesn't stop there, even this nucleus family-structure is changing.

To be continued...

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Well hopefully the future would involve more liberty and prosperity for more people which would require the elimination of states and nations (and paper "money" BTW.) at least as we know them today. At least maybe more but smaller and less powerful.

In some ways these things are improving, but in many ways, right now we seem to be on a trend the other way.

Or we could acknowledge that the resources exist in the world such that no one ever need to want for food, potable water, shelter, security, healthcare, and education--and that it is our duty as a civilized society to make sure those resources aren't hoarded by a greedy few.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Or we could acknowledge that the resources exist in the world such that no one ever need to want for food, potable water, shelter, security, healthcare, and education--and that it is our duty as a civilized society to make sure those resources aren't hoarded by a greedy few.

A noble goal indeed, but unlikely at least in the near term. The resources for what you describe are still a limiting factor, especially in certain areas of the world. Yes, the world can, and has, make great strides in that general direction but I think you are seriously overestimating the availability of resources. Even assuming that the resources for such a Herculean effort (again not that it isn't a noble goal) exist, the infrastructure for production and distribution don't exist and would require an absolutely unprecedented level of global peace and cooperation.

The resources are certainly there...but you're right in that the infrastructure is NOT ready globally.

The problem becomes... If my efforts and resources are going to be "pooled" for the society, then I (and all of society) should have a say in what YOU are allowed to do.
If my contributions are going to be used for your health care, for instance, then "I" should be able to tell you that you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't play football, or drive a motorcycle, or any number of other things that might adversely affect your health and cause the society to have to spend its resources unnecessarily.

Of course, I, as an individual, can't tell you or anyone else what they can't do... So we need a government to make those rules. Do you really want the government telling you what you can eat?... Or what you CAN'T eat? Do you want the government telling you you can no longer enjoy your favorite pastime because the actuarial tables say the likelihood of you breaking a leg or arm is too high?

You want the government (society) to provide everything for everyone, but do you REALLY want to give up the freedom that that society will require you to give up?

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

The resources are certainly there...but you're right in that the infrastructure is NOT ready globally.
The problem becomes... If my efforts and resources are going to be "pooled" for the society, then I (and all of society) should have a say in what YOU are allowed to do.
If my contributions are going to be used for your health care, for instance, then "I" should be able to tell you that you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't play football, or drive a motorcycle, or any number of other things that might adversely affect your health and cause the society to have to spend its resources unnecessarily.
Of course, I, as an individual, can't tell you or anyone else what they can't do... So we need a government to make those rules. Do you really want the government telling you what you can eat?... Or what you CAN'T eat? Do you want the government telling you you can no longer enjoy your favorite pastime because the actuarial tables say the likelihood of you breaking a leg or arm is too high?
You want the government (society) to provide everything for everyone, but do you REALLY want to give up the freedom that that society will require you to give up?

Sadly, most people don't make the connection to that second part.

Everyone gets intoxicated by the idea of the government just providing "free" stuff. They don't imagine where that will end up.

I think that KOSH is slippery sloping it a bit. In this country in particular, we are at banana republic levels of income and wealth inequality. We can do a lot more to help boost up our fellow citizens without having to resort to these draconian restrictions of individual choice regarding football and motorcycles.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I think that KOSH is slippery sloping it a bit. In this country in particular, we are at banana republic levels of income and wealth inequality. We can do a lot more to help boost up our fellow citizens without having to resort to these draconian restrictions of individual choice regarding football and motorcycles.

Yet you look at where the claimed "concerned citizens" within this country are fully in control and we do not have greedy fat cats being prosecuted. We do not have equality. We do not have freedom from tyranny.

What we do have is restrictions on if we can buy our kid a happy meal and what size soda we should be allowed to purchase.

So reality is a bit of a slap in the face with regard to your claimed slippery slope.

Yet you look at where the claimed "concerned citizens" within this country are fully in control and we do not have greedy fat cats being prosecuted. We do not have equality. We do not have freedom from tyranny.

What we do have is restrictions on if we can buy our kid a happy meal and what size soda we should be allowed to purchase.

So reality is a bit of a slap in the face with regard to your claimed slippery slope.

It goes back even further. Helmet and seat belt laws are executed under the premise of "costs to society" of people not using these devices. These were simply precursors. KingOfSomewhereHot is exactly right. As soon as your individual choices start adding a cost burden to "society" (via things like universal healthcare), those choices will become regulated. And it will all seem perfectly reasonable and logical. And it will be perfectly logical.

One thing I like to point out to my leftist friends is that as soon as the government pays for something or gives it a tax break then all of a sudden every tax payer has a legitimate say in how the money is spent. Don't want the to listen to the bible thumpers go on about planned parenthood? Fund it with your own money. Think OWS should STFU and go away? Then don't support bank bailouts and get Fan and Fred out of the housing business. Love NPR and Big Bird. Open your own effing wallet and pay.

Another Republican with no heart and feelings just like Romney.Do you think every Liberal out there wants handouts! Most of us work for a living.

What does that have to do with what he just posted? If the program or foundation is publicly funded, there is nothing wrong with having public debate on that funding. Don't like it, don't take public funds. I would go a step further though, if you take public funds, don't complain when the public tells you what you are allowed to do with those funds when you receive them. Or complain when they cut you off if you don't abide by those stipulations. this is a two way sword.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I think that KOSH is slippery sloping it a bit. In this country in particular, we are at banana republic levels of income and wealth inequality. We can do a lot more to help boost up our fellow citizens without having to resort to these draconian restrictions of individual choice regarding football and motorcycles.

I've never understood the whole obsession with this wealth/income inequality shtick. I really don't care what Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make. Their billions don't mean that I can't make a decent living, in fact I would argue that their billions actually help me to make a decent living. The economy is not a zero sum game, which is what this whole income inequality argument seems to be based around. Not to mention that the standard of living for the "poor" in this country today is pretty darn good. It's not like (speaking generally) the poor are starving to death or having to go without clean water or electricity. Something like 70% of poor households in this country have some kind of game console and a flat screen TV. That is above and beyond the relative necessities of items like a refrigerator, car, and A/C. Yes, there are some poor in this country who truly are in dire straights and need assistance and I think we can definitely help those people out, but the left makes it sound like the top 10% have literally enslaved the bottom 50% and simply dine on ambrosia while those at the lower tiers are left to fend for themselves.

Another significant factor not being considered by those on the left is economic mobility. The left seems to think that we have "locked in" socioeconomic classes in this country, but nothing could be further from the truth. Almost 58% of those born in the bottom 20% move up and out of that bottom bracket during the course of their lives, and 61% of those born with a silver spoon in their mouth drop out of the top 20% bracket. Education remains to be the single greatest factor in upward economic mobility, and if the left is going to complain about something I think they might be best served in focusing their ire on the outrageous rise in college tuition over the past decade or two. A college degree for someone in the bottom quintile virtually guarantees that they will move out of this bottom rung of the economic ladder, but my contention is that this has at least as much to do with self-discipline and hard work as it does the sheep skin.